Terry Schiavo received much of her life sustaining care due to Medicaid funds. Now that she is deceased and the ruckus over her feeding tube is dying down, the House has passed a budget that cuts, among other things, Medicaid funding.
QUOTE
The Senate voted 52-47 to approve the blueprint of tax and spending priorities just hours after the House passed it by a similarly close 214-211.
http://www.thehometownchannel.com/money/4429674/detail.htmlAmong other cuts (via, in some cases, freezes that prevent growth with population, need, and inflation):
QUOTE
The Senate voted 52-47 to approve the blueprint of tax and spending priorities just hours after the House passed it by a similarly close 214-211. The budget instructs lawmakers to freeze or shrink spending in many domestic programs outside defense and homeland security and restrain farm, student loan, pension and some other government programs that grow automatically from year to year.
http://www.poteaudailynews.com/articles/20...s/d89or5ho2.txtQuestions for debate:
Will cutting Medicaid really save tax dollars?
If not, what would?
If so, is it good that it was cut?
Is it hypocritical of House members who complained that removing Schiavo's feeding tube was murder to vote for the passage of this bill, given that much of Schiavo's care was provided by
Medicaid?
Does the fact that Bush praised this bill, and also signed a
bill in Texas allowing doctors to remove life supporting treatment in cases where clients were considered hopeless conflict with his remarks on the necessity of preserving life? (The law allows family members ten days to find a facility that will take their loved one before doctors pull the plug.
However, this is rather difficult for families who don't have much money or insurance.)
Should people who can afford better healthcare be allowed to live longer in situations like these?